Episode 350: Murder Before Your Eyes

Murder Before Your EyesYou are witnessing Murder Before Your Eyes.

Videos are available at: Rumble and Brighteon 

When I began the research for this program I did not anticipate the shooting in Texas. It is predictable that this would happen and most likely it will happen again. Why? God is out, godless mental health blabber, defund police, destroy the 2nd Amendment and so on – is in with a false ideologies of what Constitutionalism should be based on religious, cultural and political Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. The loud mouths in media and ideologically left hate the Constitution because it is ONLY for a ‘Moral and Religious/Virtuous People.’ Worse, as I always note, Pastors do not have a Foundational Reformation or Foundational American view of truth as noted in this recent report from American Worldview Inventory 2022, Release #5: Shocking Results Concerning the Worldview of Christian Pastors.

Now, the murder going on is not only in schools when an evil person acts with a gun but through mental abuse in schools by shoving immorality, especially trans insanity, in the political arena as I discuss on almost every program. This has been happening for decades and most of the American population, especially the liberal Christian denominations and blind eye evangelicals, have a bloody hand in it.

There is NO outcry to return Christian prayer to schools. NO outcry to post the Ten Commandments back in schools. And sadly there is NO outcry to have Biblical pastors that know Foundational history in the context of the Chaplains and Clergy of the Revolution teaching in seminaries-cemeteries or in the pulpits. And because there is NO OutCry from moral groups of people, public schools will not feed students K -12 that will not accepts the ‘Trans Agenda.’ Sadly, it seems it takes the left to call out the left as Bill Maher: ‘We’re Literally Experimenting on Children’ with Gender Transitions for Children.

The crux of our present situation is from inaction and roof-top-sitting Christians Not knowing Foundational theology and history thereby allowing the insurgence of non-Reformation theology since 1707 to establish individualism that is ‘self – not god’ centric. To that end, we have weak kneed, ignorant PhD’s at the pulpits and in the seminary-cemeteries, allowing these United States to be destroyed by that roof-sitting-disassociation theology and Christian acceptance of worldviews other than Biblical.

Program outline:

– First segment: Murder Before Your Eyes

Second Segment: Brutus Predicted It

Third segment: Murder Before Your Eyes of Family

Now for this program much of our present was predicted by Brutus, being Robert Yates of New York, wrote these predictions in what is know as Anti-federalist #VI:

  • whether or not this system is so formed as either directly to annihilate the state governments, or that in its operation it will certainly effect it.

  • the powers given the legislature under the 8th section of the 1st article, had no other limitation than the discretion of the Congress.

  • the new constitution could wish, it will convey a power to lay and collect taxes, imposts, duties, and excises, according to the discretion of the legislature, and to make all laws which they shall judge proper and necessary to carry this power into execution. This I shewed would totally destroy all the power of the state governments.

  • What will render this power in Congress effectual and sure in its operation is, that the government will have complete judicial and executive authority to carry all their laws into effect, which will be paramount to the judicial and executive authority of the individual states: in vain therefore will be all interference of the legislatures, courts, or magistrates of any of the states on the subject; for they will be subordinate to the general government, and engaged by oath to support it, and will be constitutionally bound to submit to their decisions.

There is so much more and I will come back to it next week but you can read all of Anti-federalist #VI at this link.

Murder Before Your Eyes by Mental Health

First we need to define ‘murder’ so that it is clear that what is happening by the ideologues is in fact murder of our youth and our Republic. Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines Murder in this way:

1. The act of unlawfully killing a human being with premeditated malice, by a person of sound mind. To constitute murder in law, the person killing another must be of sound mind or in possession of his reason, and the act must be done with malice prepense, aforethought or premeditated; but malice may be implied, as well as express.

2. An outcry, when life is in danger.

MUR’DER, verb transitive

1. To kill a human being with premeditated malice. [See the Noun.]

2. To destroy; to put an end to.

As significant for this program is Webster’s 1828 definition of destroy:

1. To demolish; to pull down; to separate the parts of an edifice, the union of which is necessary to constitute the thing; as, to destroy a house or temple; to destroy a fortification.

2. To ruin; to annihilate a thing by demolishing or by burning; as, to destroy a city.

3. To ruin; to bring to naught; to annihilate; as, to destroy a theory or scheme; to destroy a government; to destroy influence.

4. To lay waste; to make desolate.

Go up against this land, and destroy it. Isaiah 36:10.

5. To kill; to slay; to extirpate; applied to men or other animals.

Ye shall destroy all this people. Numbers 32:15.

All the wicked will he destroy Psalms 145:20.

6. To take away; to cause to cease; to put an end to; as, pain destroys happiness.

That the body of sin might be destroyed. Romans 6:6.

7. To kill; to eat; to devour; to consume. Birds destroy insects. Hawks destroy chickens.

8. In general, to put an end to; to annihilate a thing or the form in which it exists. An army is destroyed by slaughter, capture or dispersion; a forest, by the ax, or by fire; towns, by fire or inundation, etc.

By these definitions, I discuss how what is happening in schools, on the streets and in the halls of every location of government is committing murder with premeditated malice and intent to destroy.

Sam Adams Wisdom

As you consider this article by Sam, think of the tyranny and despotism being developed at DAVOS:


[Boston Gazette, January 21, 1771.]

‘…Philanthrop may tell us of the hazard “of disturbing and inflaming the minds of the multitude whose passions know no bounds”: A traitor to the constitution alone can dread this: The multitude I am speaking of, is the body of the people – no contemptible multitude – for whose sake government is instituted; or rather, who have themselves erected it, solely for their own good – to whom even kings and all in subordination to them, are strictly speaking, servants and not masters. “The constitution and its laws are the basis of the public tranquility – the firmest support of the public authority, and the pledge of the liberty of the citizens: But the constitution is a vain Phantom, and the best laws are useless, if they are not religiously observed. The nation ought then to watch, and the true patriot will watch very attentively, in order to render them equally respected, by those who govern, and the people destin’d to obey ” – To violate the laws of the state is a capital crime; and if those guilty of it, are invested with authority, they add to this crime, a perfidious abuse of the power with which they are entrusted: “The nation therefore, the people, ought to suppress those abuses with their utmost care & vigilance” – This is the language of a very celebrated author, whom I dare say, Philanthrop is well acquainted with, and will acknowledge to be an authority.

Philanthrop, I think, speaks somewhat unintelligibly, when he tells us that the well being and happiness of the whole depends upon subordination; as if mankind submitted to government, for the sake of being subordinate: In the state of nature there was subordination: The weaker was by force made to bow down to the more powerful. This is still the unhappy lot of a great part of the world, under government: So among the brutal herd, the strongest horns are the strongest laws. Mankind have entered into political societies, rather for the sake of restoring equality; the want of which, in the state of nature, rendered existence uncomfortable and even dangerous. I am not of levelling principles: But I am apt to think, that constitution of civil government which admits equality in the most extensive degree, consistent with the true design of government, is the best; and I am of this opinion, because I agree with Philanthrop and many others, that man is a social animal. Subordination is necessary to promote the purposes of government; the grand design of which is, that men might enjoy a greater share of the blessings resulting from that social nature, and those rational powers, with which indulgent Heaven has endow’d us, than they could in the state of nature: But there is a degree of subordination, which will for ever be abhorrent to the generous mind; when it Is extended to the very borders, if not within the bounds of slavery: A subordination, which is so far from conducing “to the welfare and happiness of the whole”, that it necessarily involves the idea of that worst of all the evils of this life, a tyranny: An abject servility, which instead of “being essential to our existence as a people,” disgraces the human nature, and sinks it to that of the most despicable brute. I cannot help thinking, that the reader must have observed in Philanthrop’s last performance, that a foundation is there laid for a dangerous superstructure: and that from his principles, might easily be delineated a plan of despotism, which however uncommon it may be, for the laws and constitution of the state to be openly and boldly oppos’d, our enemies have long threatened to establish by violence. If Philanthrop upon retrospection shall think so, he will, like a prudent physician, administer an antidote for the poison: If not, I hope the attention of others will be awakened to that excellent maxim, “no less essential in politicks than in morals”, principiis obsta. It is impolitick to make the first attempt to enslave mankind by force: This strikes the imagination, and is alarming: “Important changes insensibly happen: It is against silent & slow attacks that a nation ought to be particularly on its guard.”


Jan. 15th.


1. ‘Terrible Time For Trans Youth:’ New Survey Spotlights Suicide Attempts — And Hope, Forbes online

2. Nearly half of LGBTQ youth seriously considered suicide, survey finds, on NPR

3. Syncretism definition and description at ScienceDirect

4. Moral Therapeutic Deism, By RYAN SANDERS

End Notes and Quotes:


Should be Limited (Brutus essays No. VII and VIII) In Federalist No. 23, Alexander Hamilton spoke of the necessity for an energetic government. “BRUTUS” replied. Taken from the 7th and 8th essays of “Brutus” in The New-York Journal, January 3 and 10, 1788. Robert Yates, Brutus January 3 and 10, 1788

…It is said, I know, that such a separation of the sources of revenue, cannot be made without endangering the public safety – “unless (says a writer) [Alexander Hamilton] it can be shown that the circumstances which may affect the public safety are reducible within certain determinate limits; unless the contrary of this position can be fairly and rationally disputed, it must be admitted, as a necessary consequence, that there can be no limitation of that authority which is to provide for the defense and protection of the community, etc.”(1) (1 Federalist, No. 23.) The pretended demonstration of this writer will instantly vanish, when it is considered, that the protection and defense of the community is not intended to be entrusted solely into the hands of the general government, and by his own confession it ought not to be. It is true this system commits to the general government the protection and defense of the community against foreign force and invasion, against piracies and felonies on the high seas, and against insurrection among ourselves. They are also authorized to provide for the administration of justice in certain matters of a general concern, and in some that I think are not so. But it ought to be left to the state governments to provide for the protection and defense of the citizen against the hand of private violence, and the wrongs done or attempted by individuals to each other. Protection and defense against the murderer, the robber, the thief, the cheat, and the unjust person, is to be derived from the respective state governments. The just way of reasoning therefore on this subject is this, the general government is to provide for the protection and defense of the community against foreign attacks, etc. They therefore ought to have authority sufficient to effect this, so far as is consistent with the providing for our internal protection and defense. The state governments are entrusted with the care of administering justice among its citizens, and the management of other internal concerns; they ought therefore to retain power adequate to that end. The preservation of internal peace and good order, and the due administration of law and justice, ought to be the first care of every government. The happiness of a people depends infinitely more on this than it does upon all that glory and respect which nations acquire by the most brilliant martial achievements. And I believe history will furnish but few examples of nations who have duly attended to these, who have been subdued by foreign invaders. If a proper respect and submission to the laws prevailed over all orders of men in our country; and if a spirit of public and private justice, economy, and industry influenced the people, we need not be under any apprehensions but what they would be ready to repel any invasion that might be made on the country. And more than this, I would not wish from them. A defensive war is the only one I think justifiable. I do not make these observations to prove, that a government ought not to be authorised to provide for the protection and defense of a country against external enemies, but to show that this is not the most important, much less the only object of their care.’


Anti-Federalist No. 26, The Use of Coercion by the New Government (Part I)

“A FARMER AND PLANTER” had his work printed in The Maryland Journal, and Baltimore Advertiser, April 1, 1788. 1 April 1788

by A Farmer and Planter

‘…Our great Lords and Masters are to lay taxes, raise and support armies, provide a navy, and may appropriate money for two years, call forth the militia to execute their laws, suppress insurrections, and the President is to have the command of the militia. Now, my countrymen, I would ask you, why are all these things directed and put into their power? Why, I conceive, they are to keep you in a good humor; and if you should, at any time, think you are imposed upon by Congress and your great Lords and Masters, and refuse or delay to pay your taxes, or do anything that they shall think proper to order you to do, they can, and I have not a doubt but they will, send the militia of Pennsylvania, Boston, or any other state or place, to cut your throats, ravage and destroy your plantations, drive away your cattle and horses, abuse your wives, kill your infants, and ravish your daughters, and live in free quarters, until you get into a good humor, and pay all that they may think proper to ask of you, and you become good and faithful servants and slaves.[12] Such things have been done, and I have no doubt will be done again, if you consent to the adoption of this new Federal Government. You labored under many hardships while the British tyrannized over you! You fought, conquered and gained your liberty—then keep it, I pray you, as a precious jewel. Trust it not out of your own hands; be assured, if you do, you will never more regain it. The train is laid, the match is on fire, and they only wait for yourselves to put it to the train, to blow up all your liberty and commonwealth governments, and introduce aristocracy and monarchy, and despotism will follow of course in a few years. Four-years President will be in time a King for life; and after him, his son, or he that has the greatest power among them, will be King also. View your danger, and find out good men to represent you in convention-men of your own profession and station in life; men who will not adopt this destructive and diabolical form of a federal government. There are many among you that will not be led by the nose by rich men, and would scorn a bribe. Rich men can live easy under any government, be it ever so tyrannical. They come in for a great share of the tyranny, because they are the ministers of tyrants, and always engross the places of honor and profit, while the greater part of the common people are led by the nose, and played about by these very men, for the destruction of themselves and their class. Be wise, be virtuous, and catch the precious moment as it passes, to refuse this newfangled federal government, and extricate yourselves and posterity from tyranny, oppression, aristocratical or monarchical government.…’


Anti-Federalist No. 32, Federal Taxation and the Doctrine of Implied Powers (Part I) (Brutus essay No. V)

13 December 1787

A powerful rebuttal of Hamilton, the logic of Brutus can be found in a supreme Court decision of 1819, McCulloch v. Maryland. Taken from “Brutus” fifth essay, The New-York Journal of December 13, 1787.

By Robert Yates, Brutus

‘…It is, perhaps, utterly impossible fully to define this power. The authority granted in the first clause can only be understood in its full extent, by descending to all the particular cases in which a revenue can be raised; the number and variety of these cases are so endless, and as it were infinite, that no man living has, as yet, been able to reckon them up. The greatest geniuses in the world have been for ages employed in the research, and when mankind had supposed that the subject was exhausted they have been astonished with the refined improvements that have been made in modem times, and especially in the English nation on the subject—If then the objects of this power cannot be comprehended, how is it possible to understand the extent of that power which can pass all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying it into execution? It is truly incomprehensible. A case cannot be conceived of, which is not included in this power. It is well known that the subject of revenue is the most difficult and extensive in the science of government. It requires the greatest talents of a statesman, and the most numerous and exact provisions of the legislature. The command of the revenues of a state gives the command of every thing in it.—He that has the purse will have the sword, and they that have both, have every thing; so that the legislature having every source from which money can be drawn under their direction, with a right to make all laws necessary and proper for drawing forth all the resource of the country, would have, in fact, all power.

Were I to enter into the detail, it would be easy to shew how this power in its operation, would totally destroy all the powers of the individual states. But this is not necessary for those who will think for themselves, and it will be useless to such as take things upon trust, nothing will awaken them to reflection, until the iron hand of oppression compel them to it.

I shall only remark, that this power, given to the federal legislature, directly annihilates all the powers of the state legislatures. There cannot be a greater solecism in politics than to talk of power in a government, without the command of any revenue. It is as absurd as to talk of an animal without blood, or the subsistence of one without food. Now the general government having in their controul every possible source of revenue, and authority to pass any law they may deem necessary to draw them forth, or to facilitate their collection; no source of revenue is therefore left in the hands of any state. Should any state attempt to raise money by law, the general government may repeal or arrest it in the execution, for all their laws will be the supreme law of the land: If then any one can be weak enough to believe that a government can exist without having the authority to raise money to pay a door-keeper to their assembly, he may believe that the state government can exist, should this new constitution take place.


(Brutus essay No. VI)

27 December 1787

Abstract: The Federalist writers apparently never responded to “BRUTUS.” The following “Brutus” article was extracted from his sixth essay, The New-York Journal of December 27, 1787.

by Brutus

‘…In my last number I called your attention to this subject, and proved, as I think, uncontrovertibly, that the powers given the legislature under the 8th section of the 1st article, had no other limitation than the discretion of the Congress. It was shewn, that even if the most favorable construction was given to this paragraph, that the advocates for the new constitution could wish, it will convey a power to lay and collect taxes, imposts, duties, and excises, according to the discretion of the legislature, and to make all laws which they shall judge proper and necessary to carry this power into execution. This I shewed would totally destroy all the power of the state governments. To confirm this, it is worth while to trace the operation of the government in some particular instances.’

Interested in Historical Truth?

Sign up to receive awesome content, every week.

Comments Off on Episode 350: Murder Before Your Eyes

Filed under Radio Program Archives

Comments are closed.